Answer: D — both statements are individually sufficient. The core concept being tested here is the Weighted Average Seesaw, one of the most important ideas in GMAT Data Sufficiency.
The logic works like this: when you combine two groups, the combined ratio (the "company average") is always between the two individual ratios. It's a weighted average. If one group is below the combined average, the other group must be above it to balance things out. There's no way both can be below (or both above) the overall average at the same time.
Statement (1): X's ratio < Company M's ratio
This tells us X is below the combined average. By the seesaw logic, Y must be above it. So X < Company M < Y, which directly answers the question — No, X's ratio is NOT greater than Y's. Sufficient.
Statement (2): Y's ratio > Company M's ratio
This tells us Y is above the combined average. By the same logic, X must be below it. So X < Company M < Y — again the answer is No. Sufficient.
Each statement alone is sufficient → Answer D.
The common trap here: students try to test with actual numbers and run into algebra, then get confused about whether it's always true or just sometimes true. If you recognize the weighted average constraint upfront, you never need to plug numbers — the conclusion follows immediately from the structure.
Takeaway: Whenever a DS question gives you information about a subgroup's ratio relative to the combined group's ratio, the Weighted Average Seesaw tells you the other subgroup's position immediately.